Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Mary Kassian wrote an article about Alpha Woman and Beta Boy: She is pointing out once again how to avoid the mindset that is: celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.

Mary Kassian article though tends to contradict the teaching itself, and is also short on facts. To me is seems like a good example of gaslighting!

Her teaching speaks about women breadwinners turning their female role into a position of the Alpha power seeker, because of the unnatural balance of income generated. So don’t make more money than your partner, because it shows your possible usurping of his headship. Why? Less income makes the Beta Boy!

(Where do they come up with this stuff??)

Now, she does say woman can have jobs, and make a decent living. Yet, they have to be OH so careful. Then uses examples off another article where even myself felt the women were rather short sighted, and self centered. It seems to be a norm in her examples. She doesn’t like to use everyday women to make her point, but searches out examples most never come into contact with.

Yes, she found a feminist to use as an example of how everyone else lives, believes, and does life outside the complementarian belief system. Its just not realistic for most people, but she uses it anyway.

Mary Kassian’s article is called, “Alpha Woman and Beta Boys’. Her beginning paragraph makes you think she is basing it off a Pew Research Poll based on Breadwinner Moms. The study was based off the rising numbers of women’s incomes, and goes into many factors that are a reality in this world.

Yet, its not based on any power grab that Mary tends to present as the true message, nor interchangeable roles.

According to Pew Poll nearly two-thirds of homes where women are the primary or sole breadwinners are homes headed by single moms, while the other one-third percent are homes where a woman earns more than her husband. Both of these groups have grown dramatically over time.

So, actually the majority of the women in this study? Don’t have a beta boy or husband, so it’s a little misleading.

The second article Mary Kassian was referencing was from a successful older woman, that has a retired husband. I did a little reading about the author herself, and sounds like she was pretty independent for quite a while. She also started her family late in life.

What the author found is even as the bread winner of the family she still finds herself responsible for most of the domestic work around the house as well. Cooking the dinners, planning the Birthday parties, etc. I, myself would also find that rather odd if my circumstance was the same. I mean what does he do with his retirement time?

Now, remember we are speaking of a one third that would be considered having a partner, and we still may not even know their circumstances (disability for example). The ladies the second article references seem to be professional women on the higher ranks of their profession. Most of us – don’t fill that description. So, again it not really relatable.

So using them as a ‘see what I mean ladies’ type of example is rather silly. They aren’t the norm here after all.

Its quite a spin!

Income doesn’t make a person ‘Alpha’

The “Alpha’ personality is normally something people are born with, and its cultivated in life. They naturally tend to take charge, are outgoing, and seek solutions without ‘blaming or whining’ about others not giving them the affirmation that certain people claim they need.

Don’t get me wrong its always nice to hear affirmation, but they don’t ‘need’ it in order to be an Alpha Personality. Their personality is normally that of confidence. They tend to be risk takers, and are successful in life.

Income in that sense may follow of course, but that doesn’t make them the Alpha. The natural confidence is normally the key trait.

That is NOT to say it doesn’t have its negative side, and people don’t push their confidence into power hungry positions. Yet, it doesn’t automatically happen that way either.

From what I have seen in life those ‘power hungry’ positions normally have enablers that hand over this power to them. It can quickly turn into arrogance and conceit.

This is one of the biggest issues non complementarian’s have with their belief system. Yet, one comp’s will claim isn’t present if you ‘do it right’. Forget human nature and all that.

Could be why God doesn’t’ encourage his followers to seek this power to begin with.

Don’t make your husband the Beta

As much as the Complementarians don’t wish for others to view their lists of traits of gender roles in a negative light, and not entirely ‘biblical’? Its not that hard to put the puzzle pieces together with their descriptions, and articles that they write such as this one..

To be perfectly honest? Mary Kassian herself tends to have some ‘alpha’ traits herself, but I doubt she would view that part of her as non feminine. Yet, it’s quite the opposite of what they claim to be feminine. There is nothing wrong with her Alpha traits, because that is how God made her. Its just kind odd if you compare that to what they present as the proper lady.

No doubt her diversion in response is that her husband is the breadwinner. Yet, that doesn’t make any sense in light of the reality of many pastors within their group aren’t the bread winners. Also, it doesn’t address their stereotype of women that goes against her VERY nature (I mean that is what teach right?). It also has nothing to do with Alpha Traits.

The opinion that Mary Kassian takes is that the ‘breadwinner’ status places her in the man’s role, and her husband then must be in the ‘Beta’ role (using the second article as the prime example). Yes, pretty much the role reversal they whine so much about. She uses the professional women in the other article to prove her point. Yet, realistically? The point wasn’t made. They are in the minority. Also, bread winner women don’t all act like this – remember the Pastor wifes!

I believe a more realistic example is needed. I have friends where the husband is in construction for example, and his work is seasonal. She does customer service, and works all year round. Now depending on the construction season? She may or may not be the ‘bread winner’. I mean in his off season he does find work, but it can be hard to find at times.

What Mary never mentions is that MOST people are able to be realistic about these arrangements.

What Mary Kassian hints at is: If she makes more money she will have a hard time dropping her ‘Alpha’ mode when she gets from work, and it makes things even harder in the bedroom. He on the other hand is placed automatically in the ‘beta’ mode. OR she wants him the beta mode, and he is only allowed to surface to Alpha mode in bed only! Notice it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with personalities types, but job incomes. Income makes the ALPHA right? In reality, NO.

Heck, I have seen beta males that were bread winners….never mind that doesn’t fit here!

Conflicting Messages about the Alpha

In our present day most mature couples view supporting the family as a JOINT effort, and they are both doing their parts to help the family unit as a whole. The way this article is presented is that men should be almost threatened by the woman’s part if she happens to find a job that generates more income. She is at risk of stepping over that imaginary line, and turning into the ladies in Mary’s second article!

No acknowledgement of any kind that this is a sense of insecurity that is very unhealthy for his sense of self….nope! It’s a threat to his manhood! Yeah, That's common sense and a healthy outlook right?! Sigh.

This is NOT a healthy elevation of the husband, but playing games in life to make him FEEL his role. Notice the ‘emotional’ component there. It also doesn’t prove their ‘male-female roles are interchangeable’ fear either.

I think the part that really eats at me is the negative, and almost doomsday opposing views in response to this disagreement. The Christian Post had an article about this issue, and showed opposing views even within the complementarian realm.

"The American man is struggling – I think we will have a monument for the modern 21st Century man, and he will be on a couch, etched in stone, playing an X-Box," said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and assistant professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Kentucky's Boyce College. In an interview with The Christian Post on Wednesday, he argued that "men are called by God to take responsibility for provision for their families."

Notice the women will be like the professionals that Mary Kassian pointed out in the second article, and the man will be like Owen Strachan describes above – The Xbox professional.

Notice once again the ‘emotional component’ they use to WIN their argument. Your suppose to ignore all the real life examples that tend to go against their stereotypes they have presented. That’s not persuasive, but the use of rhetoric we see to often today in politics.

Now, the second pastor in the article on the Christian Post? I may not agree with whole heartily, but you notice his definition of ‘headship’ isn’t so hard nosed and unrealistic.

"I think the man should be the head of the house, but a wise 21st century position would be consultative leadership," the pastor said. He referred to I Chronicles 12, when King David consulted with the heads of tribes after becoming king. "He consulted with them because they had functional authority because of their experience, their knowledge of warfare – he was wise enough to get help." Jackson argued that a wise man would "utilize a wife who may be a medical doctor with a multimillion earning potential."

Quoting Ephesians 5, Jackson argued that the order for wives to "submit to your husbands and to the Lord," is a military term, which means for a wife to align herself to the strategic goals of her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is told to love his wife as his own body. The pastor argued that this means "he's going to have to take into account her career, her passions, her desires, and put them on at least the same level as he would put his own career and personal aspirations."

This opinion of course sent Owen Strachman into a tizzy! (Tizzy Definition: a state of nervous excitement or agitation.) Owen feels that he doesn’t need to take her into account, but remind the world of their roles – and his account.

Most mature couples I know look at income generated as ‘our’ money, and there isn’t any power grab that Mary and Owen concentrate so much on. They can say what they will, but their definitions of ‘roles’ in their presentations do reveal this. Owen no doubt feels the power struggle is from Genesis, but has a hard time some realizing people find ways of moving past these ‘curses’ he uses to justify the roles. To him? It has to be there!

Yet, these types of articles and teachings that Mary Kassian and Owen Strachman tend to encourage this type of stinkin thinking! It encourages the THREAT to power structure they claim they are against, and then hand you a boogey man reality in its place. Their logic just doesn’t follow reality. I mean you are suppose to go WITH the ‘curses’ of Genesis – not work against them! Its only natural right?

Addendum To Add the Interchangeable Pastor Wives

Mary Kassian’s final note in her article about the Alpha Women and the Beta Boys was rather telling to me. It seems she heard from Pastor’s and their Wives, and because of HER salary. So Mary attempts at the end to change the tone:

Note: I’ve heard from several complemententarian pastors who say their wives must work and do out-earn them. However, they also tell me that though this is the situation, they don’t feel it’s ideal. They wish they earned more, and wish that their wives didn’t have to bear the burden of being primary breadwinner.
It’s not “wrong” for a woman to out earn her husband. That wasn’t my point. My point is merely that such a circumstance can and often does put an unnatural strain on relationships, and that a woman in this situation needs to take care to make sure that her higher wage doesn’t cause her to usurp her husband’s headship in their home.

Hmm. How sad. Their churches don’t pay their pastor’s enough so their own families don’t have an ‘unnatural strain’ on their marriage. Leaders within this belief system are to busy writing books, having seminars, and push teachings that their own pastor’s don’t even have the luxury of living. Wow.

Somehow I think we all know that isn’t the reality for these couples. He was called to do God’s work, and she is doing her part to support him in this call. They live their life’s against the roles they preach, and if she believes in his work? No doubt its not such a heavy burden for her in that sense – even though its ‘unnatural’.

So, as their pastor’s live life is in this ever present ‘danger’? The families that attend their church live this as well. That’s the reality of it from their viewpoint. I will never understand WHY they feel this ‘think the worse’ about aspects of life like this are in anyway encouraging.

Think about it! She hints in her article that the greater salary from the wife creates the Alpha Woman whom is: celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.
Yet, ends her article with an example of those who do make greater salaries WHOM I would assume she states is NOT the Alpha Woman with her Beta Boy. They are living the feminist/egalitarian male-female interchangeable roles in life…but really aren’t. Why? She takes great care in making sure her salary doesn’t usurp his authority.

“For a good wife contains so many persons in herself. What was [she] not to me? She was my daughter and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my subject and my sovereign; and always, holding all these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress, but at the same time all that any man friend (and I have good ones) has ever been to me. Perhaps more.... Did you ever know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left?”

1 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Hannah: "(Where do they come up with this stuff??)"

Haha!

This is where their foundation on sand (not build on the rock of Jesus but on the sand of cultural preferences) leads them too.It's wacky because their foundation is if all wrong. It leads to all sorts of false assumptions and crazy making.But they MUST prove that their complementarian house isn't built on sand even if they have to search high and low for examples and skew the conclusions way beyond anything reasonable.If they don't, then they will have to admit their faulty foundation.